Skip to toolbar

HEROQUEST – Hasbro / Ludofilia GameZone

Home Forums News, Rumours & General Discussion HEROQUEST – Hasbro / Ludofilia GameZone

Supported by (Turn Off)

This topic contains 37 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  odinsgrandson 5 months, 1 week ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 31 through 38 (of 38 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1699406

    onlyonepinman
    16294xp
    Cult of Games Member

    If Hasbro had ANY case whatsoever, they wouldn’t have made a deal with Gamezone, they would have simply used the trademark and forced Gamezone to initiate the lawsuit knowing that Gamezone would be unlikely to be able to really pursue them. In terms of being upfront about Trademark usage – no crowdfunding campaign that I have ever backed has made any statement about whether they have rights to use their trademarks. Gamezone did not have a right to use it in the USA – Hence the campaign was removed from Kickstarter. They did have a right to use it in Spain and possibly other parts of Europe.

    But here’s the opening statement from their crowdfunding campaign:
     
    We present to you a new tribute game to the memorable HEROQUEST board game on the occasion of its 25th anniversary
     
    That’s the first thing they say, before they say ANYTHING else at all – it’s a tribute. Even on their original Kickstarter campaign they were clear about who they were and why they were doing it. People wanted to see Heroquest, GW and Hasbro seemed uninterested in remaking it and so they were bringing it back themselves. This is not any different to what Restoration Games do all the time (in fact they took out a trademark on a Heroquest trademark before Hasbro announced they were rereleasing it)

    So they were up front about everything they needed to be upfront about.

    #1699579

    odinsgrandson
    Participant
    3508xp

    Hasbro would at least offer them enough that it would cost them less than paying their lawyers to take down Gamezone.

    That’s kind of a standard practice.

    And that is specifically what they changed. They went from saying “this is a new edition of Hero Quest” to “This is a tribute to Hero Quest.” And they certainly weren’t up front about things- they told us that they were contacted by the Heroquest RPG people and said that they would soon make a deal with them and everyone would be happy- the HeroQuest RPG people said “no, that’s not what happened” and shortly after, the campaign was shut down.

    I really didn’t think it was controversial to say that Gamezone misrepresents things.

    • This reply was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by  odinsgrandson.
    #1699580

    onlyonepinman
    16294xp
    Cult of Games Member

    If there’s no vid claim on the part of Gamezone, Hasbro don’t do anything at all beyond a cease and desist letter – that would be standard practice. They just start using their own legally owned trademark. They certainly wouldn’t pay up.

    But they did make a deal, which very strongly suggests that Gamezone legally held the trademark (I am fairly sure this was checked by people and reported on Boardgame Geek).

    #1699597

    odinsgrandson
    Participant
    3508xp

    I don’t think you understand. Gamezone did own a trademark obtained legally to use the name. The thing is, Gamezone cannot force Hasbro to stop using the title (and if they tried, they’d be in for a world of hurt).

    Hasbro could prove that Gamezone’s non-existent game is a derivative work in court, but that would cost a lot of money and could take a year or two- for a game that’s already released in the US.

    I think it is more economical to simply pay Gamezone for the trademark.

    #1699602

    onlyonepinman
    16294xp
    Cult of Games Member

    Nobody is saying that Gamezone could force Hasbro to do anything. I am not sure where you have read that but it’s certainly not from me.  Whether or not Gamezone could or could not have mounted a significant legal challenge is also not really the issue, certainly not part of your original tirade at any rate. You raised 3 key points

    • Gamezone were broke
    • Gamezone had no legal position against Hasbro
    • Gamezone were intentionally creating brand confusion.

    All three of these are false.

    #1699725

    odinsgrandson
    Participant
    3508xp

    Okay, I’ll defend my points:

    – Gamezone was broke. I feel it is very clear that Gamezone do not have the money to produce the game that they promised seven years ago or else they would have by now. But there were also reports that they owed money to some of their sculptors and artists as well as a lawsuit from Lazanos that I didn’t follow. Anyway, I simply do not believe that Gamezone was just perfecting their game design for the past seven years.

    – Gamezone do not have a legal standing against Hasbro. I mean that they cannot prevent Hasbro from using the title Hero Quest in Spain due to prior usage.

    Are you saying that Gamezone would have a legal standing to defend themselves against Hasbro? Because that’s true, they owned a trademark, and a lot of Hero Quest is pretty generic. I really meant that Gamezone could not prevent Hasbro’s game from doing anything, which you seem to agree with.

    – Gamezone intentionally created brand confusion to associate them with the existing Hero Quest brand. Their original Kickstarter headline was “A new edition of the memorable HEROQUEST board game” (bold is mine, caps are theirs). They changed and softened this as they got caught and after their first two crowdfunding campaigns were shut down.

    • This reply was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by  odinsgrandson.
    #1699734

    onlyonepinman
    16294xp
    Cult of Games Member

    At the risk of talking in circles…

    If they were broke, they would have had to cease trading.  They didn’t.  They didn’t have enough money to fulfil the Kickstarter, that doesn’t mean they’re broke.

    Gamezone had a legal right to use the Heroquest trademark and thus they had a legal position against Hasbro.  Having a legal position and being able to defend it aren’t necessarily the same but they DID have a legal position.  I would say that Hasbro acted honourably in this regard.

    In trying to bring back Heroquest Gamezone were no more dishonest than Restoration Games.  There was no extant Heroquest brand to confuse with at the time, they were very clear about who they were, what they were trying to do and why.  Had all gone according to plan and they hadn’t messed up the work, then they could have rightly claimed to have produced a new edition of the Heroquest game.

    You seem to be quite angry about all this, maybe you lost money on it or something.  Even if that’s true, your anger seems somewhat misguided – the campaign failed due to Gamezone’s mismanagement of funds, not for any of the reasons you have listed.  So by all means be angry at Gamezone but do so for the right reasons.  If you haven’t lost any money over this then honestly I don’t understand why you seem to have such a strong opinion of the situation or of Gamezone.

    #1703165

    odinsgrandson
    Participant
    3508xp

    – I’m not angry at them and I lost no money. I am bothered by the way you’re denying the reality that I witnessed. I believe I am overstating their dishonesty to a point, but I am baffled by how you can believe what you’re writing.

    They were no more dishonest than Restoration Games? Because Restoration Games made zero announcements or claims about bringing back Heroquest? Restoration bought a trademark; fans found out and jumped all over at what it might mean (it turns out- nothing).

    Gamezone claimed they had rights to Heroquest that they did not have. They came clean after they were caught by TGN, but still lied about making a deal with Moon Design. They were booted from their second crowdfunding attempt because they maintained  wording that implied that they had rights to the MB game, and only stopped implying this on their final crowdfunding website.

    If you want to say that backers by that point all knew, I think you’re right.

    I might compare them to TSR- the current company that bought the trademark. It isn’t hard to find out the truth, but there’s still a pretty clear attempt to portray their brand as being a continuation of the old brand.

    –  I thought they’d still deliver their game because none of this dishonesty meant that they were going to fail to deliver and continually claim that delivery was just around the corner.

Viewing 8 posts - 31 through 38 (of 38 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Supported by (Turn Off)